Easygoing, safe-bet governor may be what California voters want

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

• The column portrays Xavier Becerra’s sudden rise to the front of California’s gubernatorial primary as remarkable precisely because he is a low-key, “safe bet” candidate whose lack of flash has become an advantage in a volatile political era, suggesting many voters now prefer a calm, non-threatening figure over a charismatic showman.

• It argues that despite perennial grumbling about Sacramento, Californians historically gravitate toward candidates with deep state-government experience when choosing governors, and it places Becerra squarely in that tradition by emphasizing a long résumé that includes service as state assemblyman, congressman, California attorney general and U.S. health secretary, which outside coverage also frames as a core part of his appeal to voters seeking competence over “glitz and sizzle.”^[3][4]

• Building on that, the piece contends that Becerra’s surge is backed by data rather than hype, pointing to multiple independent polls that now consistently show him leading the crowded field — including UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and the Public Policy Institute of California, which both find Becerra ahead of Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer in a three-way contest for the top two spots on the November ballot.^[1][2][3][5]

• The article further maintains that this rise was not organic alone but was accelerated when former frontrunner Eric Swalwell abruptly dropped out amid misconduct allegations, with much of Swalwell’s support migrating to Becerra, allowing the former cabinet secretary to attract more donors, interest-group endorsements and media attention, a progression mirrored in outside reporting that tracks Becerra’s polling leap from low single digits in early spring to front-runner status by late May.^[1][3][4]

• Additionally, the column highlights a tactical, hard-edged side to Becerra’s ostensibly mild-mannered persona, describing how his campaign sought to subtly boost Hilton among Republican voters by running digital ads that branded the conservative commentator as Donald Trump’s “favorite” candidate, a move intended to shore up Hilton’s MAGA support and block fellow Democrat Steyer — whom Becerra would rather avoid in a big-spending general-election fight — a dynamic also noted in external analyses of the three-way primary chess match.^[2][3][5]

• At the same time, the piece stresses that Becerra’s calm temperament is paired with aggressive opposition to Trump’s policies, arguing this combination is exactly what Democratic voters want: a no-drama administrator who nonetheless fought the first Trump administration relentlessly in court, a theme echoed in other coverage that highlights Becerra’s extensive record of suing the federal government and notes that Democrats, who outnumber Republicans about two-to-one in California, overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump and are gravitating toward candidates who challenged those policies.^[3][4]

• The column also underscores how identity and representation intersect with résumé and demeanor, noting that Becerra would be California’s first elected Latino governor and describing his especially strong support among Latino and Asian American voters, a pattern consistent with pollsters’ observations that his profile as an experienced Latino leader has helped distinguish him in a large field.^[3][4]

• Finally, the piece suggests that gubernatorial elections are ultimately about personal comfort as much as ideology, invoking the metaphor of “trying on a new suit” to argue that many Californians see Becerra as plain but comfortable — a familiar, steady figure who fits the moment better than wealthier or flashier rivals, a characterization supported by polling that finds him relatively well liked and viewed as a reassuring, workmanlike choice rather than a political celebrity.^[2][4]

Different views on the topic

• In contrast to the column’s confident framing of Becerra as the safe favorite, some analysts and pollsters caution against treating pre-primary leads as destiny, noting that surveys show a tight three-way race with large shares of undecided voters and millions of ballots still to be cast, and stressing that while Becerra, Hilton and Steyer have separated from the pack, late shifts could still alter the order of finish.^[1][2][3][5]

• Whereas the article celebrates insider experience, rival campaigns and their supporters champion a very different message, arguing that California needs bold, disruptive leadership rather than another Sacramento veteran; Steyer in particular has poured massive sums into ads casting himself as a climate-focused reformer and attacking Becerra, with outside reporting noting that his nearly $200 million advertising blitz has often taken direct aim at the front-runner as too conventional and too closely tied to the existing political establishment.^[3]

• Meanwhile, some conservative and populist voices rally around Steve Hilton precisely because he is not a long-time officeholder, presenting the former Fox News commentator as an outsider willing to challenge California’s political class; commentary describing the race emphasizes Hilton’s appeal to voters frustrated with Democratic dominance and Sacramento insiders, pushing back against the notion that deep government experience is an unqualified asset and arguing instead that it can signal complacency and detachment from everyday concerns.^[1][3]

• Additionally, critics of intra-party “gamesmanship” view Becerra’s strategy of amplifying Hilton’s ties to Trump to engineer an easier November opponent as cynical and risky, arguing that efforts by Democrats in recent cycles to elevate more hard-line Republicans have sometimes backfired and, more broadly, can deepen polarization and erode trust in the electoral process; such critics contend that campaigns should focus on winning arguments on the merits rather than manipulating the opposing field, even if the tactic is legal and increasingly common.

• Some observers and activists also question the column’s emphasis on Trump as the dominant frame for the governor’s race, arguing that California’s next governor should be judged primarily on plans for housing affordability, homelessness, crime, water, schools and the state budget, not chiefly on past legal battles with a former president; from this vantage point, a résumé heavy on anti-Trump lawsuits is seen as less compelling than concrete proposals for addressing day-to-day state challenges.

• Furthermore, while the piece highlights Becerra’s likability and comfort factor, other reporting notes that his favorability ratings are mixed and that a substantial share of voters either view him unfavorably or do not know much about him, suggesting that he may be more vulnerable than the “safe bet” narrative implies and that months of additional campaigning and negative advertising could reshape impressions before November.^[2][4]

• Finally, the column briefly references but does not dwell on a line of attack from Becerra’s Democratic rivals, who have tried to depict the front-runner as incompetent, entangled in past controversies and overly friendly to corporate interests such as Chevron; those critiques reflect a broader opposing view that California’s next governor should be a more aggressive reformer — whether on climate, corporate accountability or campaign finance — than a veteran insider whose appeal rests on being reassuringly “boring.”